Volume 52, No. 2
Volumes > 38 (2010-->)
- Volume 52, No. 2, 2024
- Volume 52, No. 1, 2024
- Volume 51, No. 2, 2023
- Volume 51, No. 1, 2023
- Volume 50, No. 2, 2022
- Volume 50, No. 1, 2022
- Volume 49, No. 2, 2021
- Volume 49, No. 1, 2021
- Volume 48, No. 2, 2020
- Volume 48, No. 1, 2020
- Volume 47, No. 2, 2019
- Volume 47, No. 1, 2019
- Volume 46, No. 2, 2018
- Volume 46, No. 1, 2018
- Volume 45, No. 2, 2017
- Volume 45, No. 1, 2017
- Volume 44, No. 2, 2016
- Volume 44, No. 1, 2016
- Volume 43, No. 2, 2015
- Volume 43, No. 1, 2015
- Volume 42, No. 2, 2014
- Volume 42, No. 1, 2014
- Volume 41, No. 2, 2013
- Volume 41, No. 1, 2013
- Volume 41, Special Issue, 2013
- Volume 40, No. 2, 2012
- Volume 40, No. 1, 2012
- Volume 39, No. 2, 2011
- Volume 39, No. 1, 2011
- Volume 38, No. 2, 2010
- Volume 38, No. 1, 2010
Volumes 28-37 (2000-09)
- Volume 37, No. 3, 2009
- Volume 37, No. 2, 2009
- Volume 37, No. 1, 2009
- Volume 36, No. 2, 2008
- Volume 36, No. 1, 2008
- Volume 35, No. 2, 2007
- Volume 35, No. 1, 2007
- Volume 34, No. 2, 2006
- Volume 34, No. 1, 2006
- Volume 33, No. 2, 2005
- Volume 33, No. 1, 2005
- Volume 32, No. 2, 2004
- Volume 32, No. 1, 2004
- Volume 31, No. 2, 2003
- Volume 31, No. 1, 2003
- Volume 30, No. 2, 2002
- Volume 30, No. 1, 2002
- Volume 29, No. 2, 2001
- Volume 29, No. 1, 2001
- Volume 28, No. 2, 2000
- Volume 28, No. 1, 2000
Volumes 18-27 (1990-99)
- Volume 27, No. 1 & 2, 1999
- Volume 26, No. 1 & 2, 1998
- Volume 24, No. 1 & 2, 1996
- Volume 25, No. 1 & 2, 1997
- Volume 23, No. 2, 1995
- Volume 23, No. 1, 1995
- Volume 22, No. 2, 1994
- Volume 22, No. 1, 1994
- Volume 21, No. 1 & 2, 1993
- Volume 20, No. 1 & 2, 1992
- Volume 19, No. 1, 1991
- Volume 18, No. 1 & 2, 1990
Volumes 5-17 (1978-89) a.k.a 'Cormorant'
- Volume 17, No. 1 & 2, 1989
- Volume 16, No. 1, 1988
- Volume 16, No. 2, 1988
- Volume 15, No. 1 & 2, 1987
- Volume 14, No. 1 & 2, 1987
- Volume 13, No. 2, 1986
- Volume 13, No. 1, 1986
- Volume 12, No. 2, 1985
- Volume 12, No. 1, 1985
- Volume 11, No. 1 & 2, 1984
- Volume 10, No. 2, 1983
- Volume 10, No. 1, 1983
- Volume 9, No. 2, 1982
- Volume 9, No. 1, 1982
- Volume 8, No. 2, 1981
- Volume 8, No. 1, 1981
- Volume 7, 1980
- Volume 5, 1978
Search by author or title:
Mixed metrics and the need to adjust remote-sensing data in the evaluation of Key Biodiversity Areas for colonial-nesting seabirds: An example with Glaucous-winged Gulls Larus glaucescens.
Citation
RODWAY, M.S., BERTRAM, D.F. & LALACH, L.A.R. 2024. Mixed metrics and the need to adjust remote-sensing data in the evaluation of Key Biodiversity Areas for colonial-nesting seabirds: An example with Glaucous-winged Gulls Larus glaucescens. .
Marine Ornithology 52: 341
- 348
http://doi.org/10.5038/2074-1235.52.2.1600
Received 02 February 2024, accepted 16 June 2024
Date Published: 2024/10/15
Date Online: 2024/10/04
Key words: survey methodology, remotely piloted aircraft systems, drones, conservation assessment, marine birds, population size
Abstract
Conservation initiatives such as the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Programme use standardized criteria based on estimates of species abundance to identify critical habitats. They therefore depend on accurate estimates of population sizes for target species. It is essential that the metrics used to measure abundance at a candidate site are consistent with those used to estimate total abundance at national or global scales, because only then can it be determined whether abundance at a site meets threshold criteria. Imagery gathered by remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, or drones) has rapidly become a tool for determining abundance of surface-nesting seabirds and, therefore, can assist with the designation of KBAs. However, abundance data derived from drone imagery are often in different units, such as numbers of birds or numbers of incubating adults visible on photographs, than data derived from in-person counts, which generally measure the number of nests or breeding pairs. Therefore, drone data may not be directly comparable to data that have been historically collected to estimate overall breeding-population sizes. This study considered a candidate colony of Glaucous-winged Gulls Larus glaucescens located in the Salish Sea in southwestern Canada, which has been surveyed both by drone and by traditional ground surveys. We developed a conversion factor that at least partially translates counts of incubating Glaucous-winged Gulls detected on drone imagery to an estimate of breeding pairs. Compensating for only nests without incubating adults, results suggest that numbers of incubating adults detected by drone likely represent between 63% and 84% of the total number of breeding pairs. Applying this conversion increased the population estimate for the colony and changed former conclusions about whether the site met recommended criteria for designation as a national or global KBA for Glaucous-winged Gulls.
References
BCMELP (BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS). 1997. Inventory Methods for Seabirds: Cormorants, Gulls, Murres, Storm-Petrels, Ancient Murrelet, Auklets, Puffins, and Pigeon Guillemot. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 13. Victoria, Canada: Province of British Columbia, Resources Inventory Committee.
BCWS (BIODIVERSITY CENTRE FOR WILDLIFE STUDIES). 2005. British Columbia Nest Record Scheme. Victoria, Canada: Biodiversity Centre for Wildlife Studies.
BIBBY, C.J., BURGESS, N.D., HILL, D.A. & MUSTOE, S.H. 2000. Bird Census Techniques, 2nd Edition. London, UK: Academic Press.
BILLERMAN, S.M., KEENEY, B.K., RODEWALD, P.G., & SCHULENBERG, T.S. (Eds.) 2022. Birds of the World. Ithaca, USA: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL. 2010. Marine IBA toolkit: Standardised techniques for identifying priority sites for the conservation of seabirds at sea. Version 1.1. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL. 2024. Protecting the most important habitats for birds. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. [Accessed at https://www.birdlife.org/projects/ibas-mapping-most-important-places/ on 21 January 2024.]
BLIGHT, L.K. 2011. Egg production in a coastal seabird, the Glaucous-Winged Gull (Larus glaucescens), declines during the last century. PLoS One 6: e22027. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022027
BLIGHT, L.K. 2012. Glaucous-winged Gulls Larus glaucescens as Sentinels for a Century of Ecosystem Change: Long-Term Trends in Population, Diet, and Egg Production in North America's Salish Sea. PhD dissertation. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia.
BLIGHT, L.K. 2014. Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens) colony count data, Georgia Basin, BC, Canada, 1900-2010 [Dataset]. Figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1218437.v1
BLIGHT, L.K. 2023. Notes on drone-based censuses of Glaucous-winged Gulls (Larus glaucescens) at Mitlenatch and Arbutus islands, British Columbia, including comparisons between ground- and drone-based census of the Arbutus colony. Unpublished report. Delta, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
BLIGHT, L.K., BERTRAM, D.F. & KROC, E. 2019. Evaluating UAV-based techniques to census an urban-nesting gull population on Canada's Pacific coast. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 7: 312-324. doi:10.1139/juvs-2019-0005
BLIGHT, L.K., DREVER, M.C. & ARCESE, P. 2015. A century of change in Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) populations in a dynamic coastal environment. The Condor 117: 108-120.
CAMPBELL, R.W. 1976. Seabird Colonies of Vancouver Island Area. British Columbia Provincial Museum Special Publication [Map]. Victoria, Canada: British Columbia Provincial Museum.
CAMPBELL, R.W., DAWE, N.K., MCTAGGART-COWAN, I., COOPER, J.M., KAISER, G.W. & MCNALL, M.C.E. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 2: Nonpasserines—Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Victoria, Canada: Royal British Columbia Museum.
CHABOT, D., CRAIK, S.R. & BIRD, D.M. 2015. Population census of a large Common Tern colony with a small unmanned aircraft. PLoS One 10(4):e0122588. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122588
CHAUNDY, R. & WILCOX, S. 2001. Canadian Important Bird Area Criteria. Port Rowan, Canada: Bird Studies Canada; Ottawa, Canada: Nature Canada. [Accessed at https://www.ibacanada.com/documents/canadian_IBA_criteria.pdf on 05 July 2023.]
CORREGIDOR-CASTRO, A., HOLM, T.E. & BREGNBALLE, T. 2021. Counting breeding gulls with unmanned aerial vehicles: Camera quality and flying height affects precision of a semi-automatic counting method. Ornis Fennica 98: 33-45.
CORREGIDOR-CASTRO, A., RIDDERVOLD, M., HOLM, T.E. & BREGNBALLE, T. 2022. Monitoring colonies of large gulls using UAVs: From individuals to breeding pairs. Micromachines 13: 1844. doi:10.3390/mi13111844
DENLINGER, L.M. 2006. Alaska Seabird Information Series. Unpublished report. Anchorage, USA: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Nongame Program. [Accessed at http://www.gull-research.org/glaucescens/pfds/gwgu.pdf on 05 July 2023.]
DICKENS, J., HOLLYMAN, P.R., HART, T., ET AL. 2021. Developing UAV monitoring of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands' iconic land-based marine predators. Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 654215. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.654215
DRENT, R.H. 1970. Functional aspects of incubation in the Herring Gull. Behaviour. Supplement 17: 1-132.
EDNEY, A.J., HART, T., JESSOPP, M.J., ET AL. 2023. Best practices for using drones in seabird monitoring and research. Marine Ornithology 51: 265-280.
HAYWARD, J.L. & VERBEEK, N.A. 2020. Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens), version 1.0. In: BILLERMAN, S.M. (Ed.) Birds of the World. Ithaca, USA: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. doi:10.2173/bow.glwgul.01
HODGSON, J.C., MOTT, R., BAYLIS, S.M., ET AL. 2018: Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9: 1160-1167.
IUCN (INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE). 2016. A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. [Accessed at https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-048.pdf on 05 July 2023.]
KBA CANADA COALITION. 2021. A National Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas in Canada, version 1.0. Toronto, Canada: Wildlife Conservation Society Canada and Key Biodiversity Area Canada Coalition. doi:10.19121/2021.Report.39502
KOLBERT, E. 2014. The Sixth Extinction. New York, USA: Henry Holt and Company.
LALACH, L.A.R., BRADLEY, D.W., BERTRAM, D.F. & BLIGHT, L.K. 2023a. Using drone imagery to obtain population data of colony-nesting seabirds to support Canada's transition to the global Key Biodiversity Areas program. Nature Conservation 51: 155-166. doi:10.3897/natureconservation.51.96366
LALACH, L.A.R., BRADLEY, D.W., BERTRAM, D.F. & BLIGHT, L.K. 2023b. Corrigendum: Using drone imagery to obtain population data of colony-nesting seabirds to support Canada's transition to the global Key Biodiversity Areas program. Nature Conservation 51: 155-166. doi:10.3897/natureconservation.51.96366. Nature Conservation 53: 319-320 doi:10.3897/natureconservation.53.113548
LEWIS, T.M., BEHNKE, C. & MOSS, M.B. 2017. Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens monitoring in preparation for resuming native egg harvest in a national park. Marine Ornithology 45: 165-174.
LIU, M., MIAO, X. & HUA, F. 2023. The perils of measuring biodiversity responses to habitat change using mixed metrics. Conservation Letters 16: e12959. doi:10.1111/conl/12959
MCCLELLAND, G.T.W., BOND, A.L., SARDANA, A. & GLASS, T. 2016. Rapid population estimate of a surface-nesting seabird on a remote island using a low-cost unmanned aerial vehicle. Marine Ornithology 44: 215-220.
MOORE, J. & COUTURIER, A. 2011. Canadian Important Bird Areas Criteria (2nd edition). Port Rowan, Canada: Bird Studies Canada; Ottawa, Canada: Nature Canada. [Accessed at https:// www.ibacanada.ca/documents/current_Canadian_IBA_Criteria.pdf on 05 July 2023.]
NETTLESHIP, D.N. 1976. Census Techniques for Seabirds of Arctic and Eastern Canada. Occasional Paper no. 25. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.
PIF (PARTNERS IN FLIGHT). 2017. Avian Conservation Assessment Database, version 2017. Brighton, USA: Bird Conservancy of the Rockies. [Accessed at https://pif.birdconservancy.org/avian-conservation-assessment-database/ on 05 July 2023.]
PIF. 2021. Avian Conservation Assessment Database, version 2021. Brighton, USA: Bird Conservancy of the Rockies. [Accessed at https://pif.birdconservancy.org/avian-conservation-assessment-database-scores/ on 05 July 2023.]
RODWAY M.S. 1991. Status and conservation of breeding seabirds in British Columbia. In: CROXALL, J.P. (Ed.) Seabird Status and Conservation: A Supplement. Technical Publication No. 11. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.
RODWAY, M.S., CAMPBELL, R.W. & LEMON, M.J.F. 2018. Seabird Colonies of British Columbia, Part 1: A Century of Changes. Wildlife Afield 13: 1-298.
RODWAY, M.S., CAMPBELL, R.W. & LEMON, M.J.F. 2024. Seabird Colonies of British Columbia, Part 4: Salish Sea. Wildlife Afield 18: 1-676.
RYBAR, S. 2022. Mitlenatch Island Glaucous-winged Gull Nest Count 2022. Unpublished report. Victoria, Canada: Mitlenatch Stewardship Team.
SAUER, J.R., PARDIECK, K.L., ZIOLKOWSKI, D.J., JR., ET AL. 2017. The first 50 years of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The Condor 119: 576-593.
SERRÉ, S., IRVINE, C., WILLIAMS, K. & HEBERT, C.E. 2022. Lake Superior herring gulls benefit from anthropogenic food subsidies in a prey-impoverished aquatic environment. Journal of Great Lakes Research 48: 1258-1269.
SOWLS, A.L., HATCH, S.A. & LEN-SINK, C.J. 1978. Catalog of Alaskan Seabird Colonies. Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS 78/78. Anchorage, USA: United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
SPEICH, S.M. & WAHL, T.R. 1989. Catalog of Washington Seabird Colonies. OCS Study MMS 89-0054. Biological Report 88(6). Washington, USA: United States Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.
STANTON, J.C., BLANCHER, P.J., ROSENBERG, K.V., PANJABI, A.O. & THOGMARTIN, W.E. 2019. Estimating uncertainty of North American landbird population sizes. Avian Conservation and Ecology 14: 4. doi:10.5751/ACE-01331-140104
VERBEEK, N.A.M. 1993. Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens). In: POOLE, A. & GILL, F. (Eds.) The Birds of North America. Philadelphia, USA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, USA: The American Ornithologists' Union. doi:10.2173/tbna.59.p
VERMEER, K. 1963. The Breeding Ecology of the Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) on Mandarte Island, B.C. Occasional Paper No. 13. Victoria, Canada: British Columbia Provincial Museum.
VERMEER, K. 1970. Breeding Biology of California and Ring-billed Gulls: A Study of Ecological Adaptation to the Inland Habitat. Report series, no. 12. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.
VERMEER, K. & DEVITO, K. 1989. Population trend of nesting Glaucous-winged Gulls in the Strait of Georgia. In: VERMEER, K. & BUTLER, R.W. (Eds.) The Ecology and Status of Marine and Shoreline Birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Special publication no. 4. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.
VERMEER, K., MORGAN, K.H., SMITH, G.E.J. & YORK, B.A. 1991. Effects of egging on the reproductive success of Glaucous-winged Gulls. Colonial Waterbirds 14: 158-165.
WATTS, A.C., BOWMAN, W.S., ABD-ELRAHMAN, A.H., ET AL. 2008. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for ecological research and natural-resource monitoring (Florida). Ecological Restoration 26: 13-14. doi:10.3368/er.26.1.13
WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL. 2023. Waterbirds Populations Portal. [Database.] Wageningen, Netherlands: Wetlands International. [Accessed at https://wpp.wetlands.org on 22 November 2023.]